• U.S.

CRITIQUE: Innuendo by Question Mark

2 minute read
TIME

William Safire, former public relations man, former White House speechwriter (he coined “nattering nabobs of negativism”), for the past 15 months has been the New York Times ‘s house conservative. In his columns which appear on the newspaper’s Op-Ed page, he has occasionally defended the President wittily and cogently, and has sometimes even criticized the White House (especially for bugging his telephone when he was in residence). More often, he has nitpicked the testimony of Richard Nixon’s accusers or shot at them with dum dum bullets. Last week he went stalking after Leon Jaworski’s “Special Persecution Force” and the “reign of terror” it is supposedly carrying out in Washington.

Safire dazzlingly demonstrated a technique that might be called innuendo by question mark. He asked rhetorically: “What deals were made in secrecy to buy testimony? What bribes of freedom were offered, what coercion used to elicit accusations that might be perjurious? What officials were harassed for daring to criticize? What collusion was there to time indictments to the impeachment process,as in Mr. Connally’s indictment on the day the ‘abuse of power’ article of impeachment was voted upon?”

All this in turn prompted another question: Did Safire have some inside information? The column offered none. Questioned afterward, Safire said that he knew of one harassed official, but would not name him. He further speculated that Jake Jacobsen, the lawyer implicated in the milk deal, may have undergone coercion, but he had no supporting facts. By “bribes,” Safire meant the lenient treatment given some Watergate suspects — not that plea bargain ing is unique to Watergate. Asto the timing of Connally’s indictment, Safire seemed unaware of an important point: Jaworski’s office had delayed the proceeding a full week so as not to mar the wedding of Connally’s son Mark.

Safire wrote some time ago that he hoped to “become more of an essayist than a columnist — perhaps a slow Swift or a hazy Hazlitt.” Well, anyway, hazy.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com